May 2, 2020·2 repliesalso maybe this is a trash ass argument but f*** it i feel compelled to say it. i feel like private markets w/ safety nets (medicare, UBI etc) maintains a lot of what makes life fun and interesting w/o sacrificing the working class.
like most of us spend our days thinking about how to improve as people, how to better our social standing etc.
u could argue that this is socialized into us by capitalism but this is undeniably the filter that many have come to see life through.
i feel like life would become incredibly stale and boring if i was forced into the exact same living conditions as everyone else and there was no sense of competition.
again i RECOGNIZE that this is in part a result of neoliberal conditioning however my point still stands for a lot of ppl.
May 2, 2020·4 replies
Synopsisgo ahead and explain how its hypocritical
unless you’re a bush wookie or monk, you’re still supporting plenty of companies day in and day out that “treat their workers like s***”.
It’s low hanging fruit. Stop hatin and go get a bag
May 2, 2020Here’s a word, envy.
May 2, 2020·1 replycoltrupfirst off appreciate the reply.
if i am understanding correctly i see a couple key distinctions mainly:
1. wealth/racial inequality = still a thing
2. reforms can be repealed
3. cap relies on exploitation internationallythese are fair points to me. my thoughts corresponding to each one are:
1. is inequality inherently a bad thing if everyone is guaranteed a min standard of living? this is the huge hang-up i have w socialism.
for example i grinded hard to get a pretty lucrative position far removed from where i grew up. i am starting to realize that america isn't 100% a meritocracy and the mobility i was fortunate enough to receive isn't available to every1.
HOWEVER i wouldn't begrudge the lucky few that are able to see their work culminate in lifestyle improvement. it doesnt seem reasonable to me to mandate that every1 become equal economically and also seems fully unnecessary ... if you are guaranteed food on the table, housing, decent living etc what more do you really need to ask for EVEN IF there are still people that earn more than you ?
2. this makes sense however it also seems to apply to socialism.
socialist states could also become corrupt, implement policies that recreate private markets etc ... if anything bernies vision is the ONLY one not as susceptible to this bc it satisfies both sides sort of so theres less of a chance that its tampered with.
3. this is an excellent point and im not sure where i stand here. def something i will look more into.
my general thoughts are this ... at a certain point we have a case of diminishing marginal returns. i dont think a socialist system is THAT much better to the point where it justifies investing your energy in enacting it. especially when theres so little clarity on HOW to achieve it, how it would be implemented in practice etc
so why not just throw ur hat behind achievable policies and call it a day ?
Yes inequality is still a bad thing even if you have a living wage because corporations and wealthy individuals can still donate to political parties so that they introduce policies that benefit the corporations and erode worker's protections
- May 2, 2020based alpha chad
unless you’re a bush wookie or monk, you’re still supporting plenty of companies day in and day out that “treat their workers like s***”.
It’s low hanging fruit. Stop hatin and go get a bag
I don't think you know what hypocritical means
- May 2, 2020·1 replycoltrup
first off appreciate the reply.
if i am understanding correctly i see a couple key distinctions mainly:
1. wealth/racial inequality = still a thing
2. reforms can be repealed
3. cap relies on exploitation internationallythese are fair points to me. my thoughts corresponding to each one are:
1. is inequality inherently a bad thing if everyone is guaranteed a min standard of living? this is the huge hang-up i have w socialism.
for example i grinded hard to get a pretty lucrative position far removed from where i grew up. i am starting to realize that america isn't 100% a meritocracy and the mobility i was fortunate enough to receive isn't available to every1.
HOWEVER i wouldn't begrudge the lucky few that are able to see their work culminate in lifestyle improvement. it doesnt seem reasonable to me to mandate that every1 become equal economically and also seems fully unnecessary ... if you are guaranteed food on the table, housing, decent living etc what more do you really need to ask for EVEN IF there are still people that earn more than you ?
2. this makes sense however it also seems to apply to socialism.
socialist states could also become corrupt, implement policies that recreate private markets etc ... if anything bernies vision is the ONLY one not as susceptible to this bc it satisfies both sides sort of so theres less of a chance that its tampered with.
3. this is an excellent point and im not sure where i stand here. def something i will look more into.
my general thoughts are this ... at a certain point we have a case of diminishing marginal returns. i dont think a socialist system is THAT much better to the point where it justifies investing your energy in enacting it. especially when theres so little clarity on HOW to achieve it, how it would be implemented in practice etc
so why not just throw ur hat behind achievable policies and call it a day ?
1. Yes, because it creates class divisions and inequality begets further inequality. If there is inequality, someone always has to be at the bottom, and even if they aren't necessarily doing terrible, they will always be worse off, and the people at the top will find ways to make sure that the people at the bottom stay at the bottom. Is it just and fair if the people doing the work are beneath the people not doing the work? i don't think so. Also, should expand on the type of inequality I'm talking about. I don't care, for example, if two people are artists and one artist ends up getting a better car or more fame than the other because society deemed his work better. that is fair. what i care about is if two people are artitsts, and one has rich parents and thus was afforded more opportunity, than say artist number 2 who's parents were poor, he had to work menial jobs all his life to support himself and didn't have the leeway to pursue his passion. that type of inequality is unfair. when you have capitalism, even if that second artist still healthcare, etc., society is still titled more to the rich.
2. But does it satisfy both? You saw, or should have saw, just how much opposition bernie got from the ruling class during his campaign. they are not at all satisfied with being taxed in any way or implementing any policies that might allow the working class to see an improvement in their condition.
3. Because at some point it becomes hard to say what policies are actually achievable through electoral politics. "never believe that the rich will allow you to vote their wealth away." I personally don't believe there is any amount of energy that is too much when it comes to improving the lives of the working class or really all the disenfranchised of society. but like i said, i'm not opposed to progressive reforms (there's a ton of progressive policies i support and would love to see implemented in the mean time, i just don't believe they are sufficient to achieve a just society)
- May 2, 2020
the f*** ? bro are you ed
- May 2, 2020·1 replySynopsis
1. Yes, because it creates class divisions and inequality begets further inequality. If there is inequality, someone always has to be at the bottom, and even if they aren't necessarily doing terrible, they will always be worse off, and the people at the top will find ways to make sure that the people at the bottom stay at the bottom. Is it just and fair if the people doing the work are beneath the people not doing the work? i don't think so. Also, should expand on the type of inequality I'm talking about. I don't care, for example, if two people are artists and one artist ends up getting a better car or more fame than the other because society deemed his work better. that is fair. what i care about is if two people are artitsts, and one has rich parents and thus was afforded more opportunity, than say artist number 2 who's parents were poor, he had to work menial jobs all his life to support himself and didn't have the leeway to pursue his passion. that type of inequality is unfair. when you have capitalism, even if that second artist still healthcare, etc., society is still titled more to the rich.
2. But does it satisfy both? You saw, or should have saw, just how much opposition bernie got from the ruling class during his campaign. they are not at all satisfied with being taxed in any way or implementing any policies that might allow the working class to see an improvement in their condition.
3. Because at some point it becomes hard to say what policies are actually achievable through electoral politics. "never believe that the rich will allow you to vote their wealth away." I personally don't believe there is any amount of energy that is too much when it comes to improving the lives of the working class or really all the disenfranchised of society. but like i said, i'm not opposed to progressive reforms (there's a ton of progressive policies i support and would love to see implemented in the mean time, i just don't believe they are sufficient to achieve a just society)
last thing you said makes sense to me.
btw regarding the second point, i think its a matter of comparison. yes bernie is hated by corporate dems but a candidate advocating for legit socialism would be hated even more. clearly his system is less susceptible to dismantlement especially if ppl slowly become reliant on certain social benefits.
this discussion of whether inequality is just or not is interesting to me.
1. are there not ways to force capitalism to tilt more towards meritocracy i.e. estate taxes
2. what is the mechanism under socialism to ensure artist #2 makes more money ? like im confused as to what the mechanism is to decide that ... how do we know ppl like his music more etc
- May 2, 2020stream evangelion
Yes inequality is still a bad thing even if you have a living wage because corporations and wealthy individuals can still donate to political parties so that they introduce policies that benefit the corporations and erode worker's protections
that doesnt mean inequality is bad imo. that just means massive wealth inequality where a single individual can sway politics is bad
doesnt that just require us 2 to tax the ultra rich to a greater degree, fix campaign financing etc ?
May 2, 2020kanye is the most influential man of all time whats new
May 2, 2020hes wildn but cant lie the tesla stock price tweet was 10/10 lmao
- May 2, 2020·2 repliescoltrup
last thing you said makes sense to me.
btw regarding the second point, i think its a matter of comparison. yes bernie is hated by corporate dems but a candidate advocating for legit socialism would be hated even more. clearly his system is less susceptible to dismantlement especially if ppl slowly become reliant on certain social benefits.
this discussion of whether inequality is just or not is interesting to me.
1. are there not ways to force capitalism to tilt more towards meritocracy i.e. estate taxes
2. what is the mechanism under socialism to ensure artist #2 makes more money ? like im confused as to what the mechanism is to decide that ... how do we know ppl like his music more etc
1. Well as I said, thats why I'm not so certain socialism can be achieved through electoral politics. I tend to think it can be done in one of two ways; 1. A massive prolonged general strike where the workers come out on top, but it has to be done in an organized way or 2, revolution by a workers party. This may not be something you are personally vested in, because as you said youre looking at the diminishing returns etc,, but thats just my thoughts.
2. Ofc there is. There are ways to make capitalism "more fair" and i'm in favor of those policies in the short term (i'm in favor of something like a 100% estate tax with a couple exceptions). But, it's just not efficient for achieving equality. For example, for as unlikely as you may think it is to achieve socialism through revolution, imagine we elected a person who did institute a 100% estate tax. now we're running the risk of it having to hold up in court, and constantly, till the end of time, electing leaders who also favor this policy. i think thats almost equally unlikely.
3. So its not necessarily about more money. As I've said, the profit motive to me is not something I would keep around. Basically under what I'm advocating, artist 1 and 2 would have all their basic needs met (housing, food, medical care, education etc.,) according to their needs. In contrast to the example under even more "fair" capitalism, their would be no inequality in their opportunity, because artist 2 doesn't have any barriers to creating art, and artist 1 has no headstart in terms of having wealthy parents. Both of their work is created. they each take 5 paintings to an art gallery or whatever. although they aren't doing so in terms of competition, perhaps the public sees both their work, and more people are drawn to artist 1's work. but, they aren't creating art for profit, they are creating art because its what they love to do. so in this case, maybe artist one gets to have a painting put up in the local art gallery, while artist 2 doesn't. same with music, we already track streaming numbers. so if lets say rapper 1 and rapper 2 both put out albums. we can know who the public generally prefers based on numbers like that. so maybe he gets more notoriety in that regard, but no actual inequality has been created in either scenario.
- May 2, 2020·edited·1 replySynopsis
1. Well as I said, thats why I'm not so certain socialism can be achieved through electoral politics. I tend to think it can be done in one of two ways; 1. A massive prolonged general strike where the workers come out on top, but it has to be done in an organized way or 2, revolution by a workers party. This may not be something you are personally vested in, because as you said youre looking at the diminishing returns etc,, but thats just my thoughts.
2. Ofc there is. There are ways to make capitalism "more fair" and i'm in favor of those policies in the short term (i'm in favor of something like a 100% estate tax with a couple exceptions). But, it's just not efficient for achieving equality. For example, for as unlikely as you may think it is to achieve socialism through revolution, imagine we elected a person who did institute a 100% estate tax. now we're running the risk of it having to hold up in court, and constantly, till the end of time, electing leaders who also favor this policy. i think thats almost equally unlikely.
3. So its not necessarily about more money. As I've said, the profit motive to me is not something I would keep around. Basically under what I'm advocating, artist 1 and 2 would have all their basic needs met (housing, food, medical care, education etc.,) according to their needs. In contrast to the example under even more "fair" capitalism, their would be no inequality in their opportunity, because artist 2 doesn't have any barriers to creating art, and artist 1 has no headstart in terms of having wealthy parents. Both of their work is created. they each take 5 paintings to an art gallery or whatever. although they aren't doing so in terms of competition, perhaps the public sees both their work, and more people are drawn to artist 1's work. but, they aren't creating art for profit, they are creating art because its what they love to do. so in this case, maybe artist one gets to have a painting put up in the local art gallery, while artist 2 doesn't. same with music, we already track streaming numbers. so if lets say rapper 1 and rapper 2 both put out albums. we can know who the public generally prefers based on numbers like that. so maybe he gets more notoriety in that regard, but no actual inequality has been created in either scenario.
i feel most of what u are saying. again i have to disagree a little w the part about the artists/inequality.
starting off by saying, as i said earlier, im aware that this society is not at all always fair or meritocratic.
however, it is an undeniable truth to me that diff ppl put in diff levels of work. i grew up in a s***ty neighborhood and paid the price to get out of it ... most of my friends never gave a f*** abt school, careers etc and many are still stuck there.
it is difficult for me to understand why those ppl deserve an "equal" life to me. maybe that comes across as callous... again i believe every one of them deserves to have their needs taken care of.
but to say there should be no difference between me and them when i worked my ass off to get here is too much for me.
- May 2, 2020·1 replySynopsis
1. Well as I said, thats why I'm not so certain socialism can be achieved through electoral politics. I tend to think it can be done in one of two ways; 1. A massive prolonged general strike where the workers come out on top, but it has to be done in an organized way or 2, revolution by a workers party. This may not be something you are personally vested in, because as you said youre looking at the diminishing returns etc,, but thats just my thoughts.
2. Ofc there is. There are ways to make capitalism "more fair" and i'm in favor of those policies in the short term (i'm in favor of something like a 100% estate tax with a couple exceptions). But, it's just not efficient for achieving equality. For example, for as unlikely as you may think it is to achieve socialism through revolution, imagine we elected a person who did institute a 100% estate tax. now we're running the risk of it having to hold up in court, and constantly, till the end of time, electing leaders who also favor this policy. i think thats almost equally unlikely.
3. So its not necessarily about more money. As I've said, the profit motive to me is not something I would keep around. Basically under what I'm advocating, artist 1 and 2 would have all their basic needs met (housing, food, medical care, education etc.,) according to their needs. In contrast to the example under even more "fair" capitalism, their would be no inequality in their opportunity, because artist 2 doesn't have any barriers to creating art, and artist 1 has no headstart in terms of having wealthy parents. Both of their work is created. they each take 5 paintings to an art gallery or whatever. although they aren't doing so in terms of competition, perhaps the public sees both their work, and more people are drawn to artist 1's work. but, they aren't creating art for profit, they are creating art because its what they love to do. so in this case, maybe artist one gets to have a painting put up in the local art gallery, while artist 2 doesn't. same with music, we already track streaming numbers. so if lets say rapper 1 and rapper 2 both put out albums. we can know who the public generally prefers based on numbers like that. so maybe he gets more notoriety in that regard, but no actual inequality has been created in either scenario.
also your ideas for how to achieve socialism are interesting however i just dont think the infrastructure is in place.
i.e. even if the strike worked and the government caved in ... what the hell would they do? put the entirety of society on hold for a year or two while they completely restructure it around socialism?
considering how deep the free market is i am skeptical this is actually possible. would probably cause more inequality and violence w/o ever reaching its goal
- May 2, 2020
like imagine the case of a SINGLE business being restructured.
that means putting workers in charge on paper, shifting around physical supplies + communicative channels to reflect that, doing away with entire fields like marketing and having to funnel those ppl into new jobs, etc etc
and thats ONE, SMALL business. now multiply by the thousands
May 2, 2020based alpha chadunless you’re a bush wookie or monk, you’re still supporting plenty of companies day in and day out that “treat their workers like s***”.
It’s low hanging fruit. Stop hatin and go get a bag
- May 2, 2020based alpha chad
unless you’re a bush wookie or monk, you’re still supporting plenty of companies day in and day out that “treat their workers like s***”.
It’s low hanging fruit. Stop hatin and go get a bag
- May 2, 2020based alpha chad
unless you’re a bush wookie or monk, you’re still supporting plenty of companies day in and day out that “treat their workers like s***”.
It’s low hanging fruit. Stop hatin and go get a bag
- May 2, 2020·2 repliescoltrup
i feel most of what u are saying. again i have to disagree a little w the part about the artists/inequality.
starting off by saying, as i said earlier, im aware that this society is not at all always fair or meritocratic.
however, it is an undeniable truth to me that diff ppl put in diff levels of work. i grew up in a s***ty neighborhood and paid the price to get out of it ... most of my friends never gave a f*** abt school, careers etc and many are still stuck there.
it is difficult for me to understand why those ppl deserve an "equal" life to me. maybe that comes across as callous... again i believe every one of them deserves to have their needs taken care of.
but to say there should be no difference between me and them when i worked my ass off to get here is too much for me.
Well we have to examine why theymay not have given a f*** about school, careers etc., Trust me, I have friends who are the exact same and there's definitely a systemic component to it; by which I mean I believe there is something in the way our society is structured that led them to that belief or way of living. So maybe if society had been structured differently, it wouldn't be the case. And perhaps you had some inherent advantages in your life (not compared to society as a whole, but within your friend group) that allowed you the ability to achieve whatever it is you have, or your family life that shaped your values etc., I'm not saying whether you did or didn't, but it is a possibility.
But what it seems to me what your taking issue with is the idea that everyone shouldn't have access to the same luxuries. for example, okay, you agree everyone should have their needs taken care of, but you don't agree that everyone should be afforded the same opportunities in terms of perhaps being able to go out to a fancy restaurant, or owning a mansion etc., right?
FREE 💜May 2, 2020Kanye rent free
- May 2, 2020coltrup
also your ideas for how to achieve socialism are interesting however i just dont think the infrastructure is in place.
i.e. even if the strike worked and the government caved in ... what the hell would they do? put the entirety of society on hold for a year or two while they completely restructure it around socialism?
considering how deep the free market is i am skeptical this is actually possible. would probably cause more inequality and violence w/o ever reaching its goal
i'll just say its tough and there are people way smarter than me who theorize about this kind of stuff, although there are historical precedents. not a shot or anything cuz its a valid question, but i imagine the same question was asked when we had a feudal system, or there were people who said the abolishing of slavery would be too disruptive to actually happen. even then, governments are overthrown all the time. trust me, i am not in any way delusional to the fact that their would likely be violence in implementing the system.
but also as i said, there are way smarter people than me who can give a better answer on implementation but that also might be something we have no idea about until it happens. perhaps im completely mistaken and we get to a point where we start with someone like bernie and then we just keep moving further left.
- May 2, 2020·2 repliesSynopsis
Well we have to examine why theymay not have given a f*** about school, careers etc., Trust me, I have friends who are the exact same and there's definitely a systemic component to it; by which I mean I believe there is something in the way our society is structured that led them to that belief or way of living. So maybe if society had been structured differently, it wouldn't be the case. And perhaps you had some inherent advantages in your life (not compared to society as a whole, but within your friend group) that allowed you the ability to achieve whatever it is you have, or your family life that shaped your values etc., I'm not saying whether you did or didn't, but it is a possibility.
But what it seems to me what your taking issue with is the idea that everyone shouldn't have access to the same luxuries. for example, okay, you agree everyone should have their needs taken care of, but you don't agree that everyone should be afforded the same opportunities in terms of perhaps being able to go out to a fancy restaurant, or owning a mansion etc., right?
yeah those examples are fine.
1.
to be clear, like i said earlier i think its reasonable to say "maybe you only care about the fancy restaurant bc of the ideological foundations that underpin the system".however idk if that explains it fully bc human beings seem inherently drawn towards achieving better standards of living for themselves. and regardless of whether its a natural desire or not i and hundreds of others feel that way.
and it seems strange to me that a hard worker should be denied better living just bc SOME hard workers are not properly compensated.
2.
i hear what u are saying ant advantages within friend groups.one thing though - at a certain point i feel like its negligible and cant rly be solved by socialism. like sure i can think of one friend in particular who lived in a much rougher household than me despite living down the street (single parent who in hindsight was really abusive).
thats a problem that socialism as an economic theory arguably cant fix ... poor parenting and a fractured family.
- May 2, 2020Synopsis
Well we have to examine why theymay not have given a f*** about school, careers etc., Trust me, I have friends who are the exact same and there's definitely a systemic component to it; by which I mean I believe there is something in the way our society is structured that led them to that belief or way of living. So maybe if society had been structured differently, it wouldn't be the case. And perhaps you had some inherent advantages in your life (not compared to society as a whole, but within your friend group) that allowed you the ability to achieve whatever it is you have, or your family life that shaped your values etc., I'm not saying whether you did or didn't, but it is a possibility.
But what it seems to me what your taking issue with is the idea that everyone shouldn't have access to the same luxuries. for example, okay, you agree everyone should have their needs taken care of, but you don't agree that everyone should be afforded the same opportunities in terms of perhaps being able to go out to a fancy restaurant, or owning a mansion etc., right?
also i dont want to ignore your point about the "systemic component" bc its a great one. you could argue that poverty contributes to rough households in some cases.
however i dont think that takes away from my broader point which is that some people do work harder than others. it is unreasonable to me that just because we have socialism these differences would no longer exist.
there is clearly a biological/social (i.e. shaped by parents, culture, etc. -- NON economic things) component since ppl from similar households and socioeconomic backgrounds achieve at different levels.
May 2, 2020Tax payers made him rich